Do you believe in Evolution?

In that case I beleive in the bigbang,when I nuke you out.

 

This is my point. Your belief gives you closure and guides and that makes the human mind content. To not have these provides the mind avenues of thought .. intense , deep and sometimes just plain "wow, I can't think about it anymore because the vastness of it is just too much" type thoughts. Not that theology doesn't provide the same things but they are more or less on a scale that is consumable by humans in an easier manner than trying to understand space (if there was space) before the big bang (if it did happen). I mean, we can barely wrap our head around how big our star is.. could you imagine how big the unimass of the pre big bang would have been and what it was like? not possible.

In a way I envy you because your mind is free to think about other things while you believe that the cryptogenesis of that which we live was created by a devine being.. problem solved. My world has no such closure and is often convoluted with thoughts of how, why, and whoa!. However, I like this because it constantly reminds me of the relationships that we have with our environment and just how electrifying it truly is...literally.

To recap.. you have your answer to the ultimate question. I happen to think it is 1000000000% manifested by humans for the satisfaction of not being able to comprehend the complexities of the physical world. It's a way to wrap it all up into one solution and say "there.. all done , now we can be happy that we have an answer".. and move on to something more consumable.

I hope I didn't offend you or anyone and I truly believe in the rights of others to believe what ever they want to believe in. Words I live by:It's not my problem unless you make it my problem.

 

I also dunno,
if evolution is advancing or retarding.Maybe the monkeys evolved from us.

Chaos theory,I hate it.

 

chaos theory...i am it.

 

Physicist beleive that the universe is expanding due to the entropy(second law of thermodynamics).
And complexity is the study of how inteligence appear from the chaos.

As I said earlier I hate all this.

 

If evolution is still going on,what will we become next?
The bible says we will have new bodies in the kingdom of heaven.

 

i dont know. but i know you dont die when you die.

 

Do you beleive in judgement day?

 

Thats what christianity is all about "eternal life".

 

May I point out that Xianity is NOT the only alternative to evolution, I think the Hindus and Buddhists would dispute this, not to mention the Mayans and Aztecs


I quite like Wittgensteins approach;

"Whereof we cannot know, thereof we must pass over in silence"

Bottom line: believe what you like as long as you remember that your freedom ends where my nose begins.

Circular arguments are only good for dancing to.

Another excellent discussion courtesy of MG






My specific choice of username, will I'm afraid, be a bit of a give away in the confabulation stakes

 

I agree with Kodo on this. I personally think religion is a sort of coping mechanism used by man to try to make sense of everything. And to give life a purpose other than to simply pass on your seed. If you think about it, it is kinda depressing...like, once you die, that's it.
That's where religion comes in. It gives people something to believe in, a 'reward' after you die if you have lived a good life. Ancient Greeks had the Fields of Elysium, Hindus have the whole karma thing and christians have everlasting life.
Hope I'm not offending anyone with this, just my own opinion.

 

You aren't offending me. And I doubt that you are offending anybody else. It is your God-given right to believe or not.http://forums.majorgeeks.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

You don't see Christians getting all bent out of shape and going to court because somebody doesn't believe. It is the other way around. Jesus said that we would be hated for his namesake.

Matthew 10:22 "And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved. "

Mark 13:13 "And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved."

Luke 21:17 "And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake. "

Now I pose this question: Which religion is the most persecuted on the planet?

 

Is it still a god-given right if I don't believe in a god?

 

Yes. Where else would those rights come from? Man? Without God, man is nothing more than the cattle on the earth. Why is it that no other creature has (or is able) to attain man's level of intelligence?

Excerpt from the Declaration of Independence: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

 

How do you know?

 

Anyone who bases their faith on two books is seriously misled.

Don't belittle people here. Whether I have lost my faith or not, is irrelevant. That is an insult slanted towards religious people, and it has no place on this forum.

 

There is a difference in disagreeing and insulting someone. To clarify, my comment was that anyone who bases their belief on two books is misled. Belief, aka, faith.

So no, I didn't belittle you.


Discussion is over on that.

Back to our regular programming

 

You absolutely are not offending anybody. In fact, you are being very thoughtful, respectful, respectable, and honest, and I appreciate it.

Well, I guess that could be true, but we humans can't "invent" a God or Higher Power or anything at all, anymore than we can invent a new Primary Color. Think about it. If we indeed came about according to the theory of evolution, and indeed there was no Higher Power, how in the world could we invent something so utterly fantastic (in the sense of the word fantasy) and preposterous? About the only invention I can think of that we have come up with are fables of Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the Great Pumpkin. No one truly believes in those things, and I doubt very seriously that any religions will be sprouting up anytime soon from the above mentioned ficional characters. You also don't see people putting much energy into disproving any of those guys either, cuz that would just plain be looney.

.

No, Christianity is NOT about living a good life. Neither is it mere fire insurance to cover our butts after we die. Christianity is the realization that one CAN'T live a good life, and needs a relationship with Christ. The other religions are about being "good", being "at peace with oneself', "aligning your karma", "being in control", etc etc etc. Christianity is very unique in this way. It accepts the fallen human condition, actually embraces the fact, and turns to the Creator for Mercy.
It's also unique in that it's founder is the only person to ever walk the earth that claimed to be God, and who wasn't crazy. Mohammed never made this claim, Buddha never made this claim, even Joseph Smith (the founder of the Mormons, who are not Christian, by the way) never made this claim. These founders of religions all recognized Jesus as a "Good Man" and "Prophet" but not as the Son of God. Neither did they make the claim of divinity themselves. Where they fall short is that if Jesus wasn't God, as he claimed to be, than he was a HORRIBLE LIAR. If he was a liar, then he was an evil evil man.

As an example, what if I claimed to be God? First thing you'd do is write me off as crazy, and never give me another thought. But what if I made that claim, and followed it up with a life, not of lunacy, but one of perfection, miracles, and preaching a Gospel of forgiveness, mercy, turning the other cheek, treating others the same way you want to be treated, etc. You might then decide I was "a pretty good guy". But what if I did all that, and then demanded that you had to love me more than you loved anyone else? Would you still say I'm a good guy?

That is what you are saying if you say Jesus is a good guy, but not God. And if Jesus isn't God, then I don't believe there is a God.

But, to me, it takes much more faith to believe there is no God.

 

Regarding the bible:It is far from accurate,but it is the best tool that can transform us from a belief in an angry god to one who is forgiving.

 

No person in whose name any religion was ever founded ever had anything to do with the founding of said religion. Jesus didn't start Christianity, Mohammed didn't Islam, Buddha didn't Buddhism, Krishna/ Hinduism, etc. etc.

Take for instance the Bible. Jesus never told anyone to write any book, or anything like that. If he had, don't you think it would say so? Nowhere does it say "and Jesus told so and so to write all this down..."

Also, Jesus was a smart person. Quick on his feet. Like when the prostitute(not Magdalene) was about to get stoned, and Jesus just happened upon it. Immediately he picked up a stone and told anyone who had never sinned to be the first to throw it at her. Smart. Beautiful. If Jesus wanted a Bible to be written, don't you think he could(and would) have appointed someone to do it?

So Jesus didn't write the Bible, and he didn't tell anyone to write the Bible. The books contained in the Bible were actually written not by Jesus, not even by a follower of Jesus, not even by anyone who KNEW Jesus, but by someone WHO KNEW SOMEONE WHO KNEW JESUS. If even that. I believe it is common opinion that the books of the Bible were written not by Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, but were instead told to someone by M,M,L,and J. So not Jesus, not his Apostles, or disciples, but someone WHO KNEW THEM. Chances are the person(people) who wrote the Bible HAD NEVER EVEN MET JESUS. So all of this religion stuff wasn't commissioned by Jesus, or even any of his followers, but by someone who knew someone who followed Jesus, and had never even met Jesus personally.

Same thing for Islam. The Quran may have been spoken by Mohammed, but he never put it together and told people to follow it. It was a hobby of his. He used to speak parables and stuff, and have people write it down on cow bones and shit. (Paper was a scarcity back then.)

So when Mohammed died, one of his followers thought it would be a good idea to collect them all and put them into a book format. Just out of respect, though. Not with the authorisation or direction of the person who even said those things!

 

I find it to be just the opposite... it seems to me that Christians percieve God to be some sort of eternal asshole that you have to kiss his butt otherwise he'll strike you down to an eternity of damnation...

God is the Father, and what kind of father would persecute his children?

 

You have to understand it with the right spirit.Especially how the old testament is perceived in the new testament.

 

I have so many things I would like to add to this post to help open your eyes to a wider concept and understanding, but by looking at the very contradictory words you have chosen to make your point I know that it would be pointless. This thread has some interesting points and debates going on, but this post is just here to spark off, while not adding anything fruitful to the topic.

Anyway, I'll just finish by saying that God does not persecute. That is a human perception fighting for self-will. Think about it.....just once...doesn't a biological father repeatedly warn his child that if he crosses the road infront of a bus he will die?? And he repeats that warning until the child understands and THEN he lets go of the child's hand and allows him to cross the road alone. And why??? Because the father loves his child.....

Don't reply to this post Beanie...just consider it

 

There are convincing arguments, perhaps, to support either evolution or creation. I have let my views known....as I`m mostly agnostic. I think a lot of "GOOD" Christians are so just because of a deep fear of a so-called "hell". It`s a pity that`s the case...but I believe it to be true. Given that...perhaps, believe what you want to believe without fear of repercussions in a theoretical after-life...by just being good of heart...ie...live by the golden rule.

 

I object to Intelligent Design being taught in schools as a 'scientific theory'; the Theory of Evolution is scientific, whilts ID requires faith, and as such, should be taught alongside creationism.

Yes, although Im a 'whiny liberal', I think religion should be taught in school - but from an unbiased standpoint, so no religious indoctrination or advertising can take place, just what different people believe and choose to live their lives by. Without knowing all the viewpoints, it's more difficult to make a reasoned choice... and also, it would encourage kids to look outside their own culture.

But keep ToE to the science labs, and ID/Creationism to the R.E lessons

 

Back to the original question of evolution/creation...

When Darwin first proposed it, nothing was known about life at the microbiology level, and the theory sounded plausible. They could observe similarities between animals, chemical reactions, and electrical characteristics of nerves, and draw conclusions about how it worked. But their conclusions were much too simplistic for what actually happens. Their view of evolving new functions was almost a plug-in black box concept. A creature needed an eye, or a heart, so it just randomly grew one, it worked, and was kept and passed on. This worked fine for most of a century, and those that preferred an answer to life that did NOT involve a creator enthusiastically embraced it and promoted it. Scientists are as human as the rest of us, and most are NOT totally objective. They all have preferences and hang on to their favorite theories as long as possible. Scientists have historically been killed, often by other "scientists", because they disproved accepted "truth".

So the theory is that a random favorable mixture of chemicals in the "primordial soup", plus a spark of energy, maybe lightning, just happened to create of mixture that was alive, and capable of reproducing. Long odds, but then they really didn't know the odds, so they figured with enough time, it could have happened.

But the more we know about how living organisms actually function, and what is inside the simplest single celled organism, the longer the odds get that it could have started accidentally. Needed for life, just off the top of my head: A container for the cell contents that keeps the cell's structure contained, but will still allow absorbing the nutrients that the cell needs for fuel. Small "factories" that convert the raw materials into the amino acids that the cell needs for fuel and for building a new cell at cell division. A DNA strand that contains the code that controls the cell's structure and functions, capable of splitting and reproduction to create other cells. Just that DNA strand alone is so complex that we've only recently managed to catalog it. Not understand it all, just catalog it's properties. Hugely complex. And it all has to work, perfectly and in balance, immediately.

Accepting that this level of complexity and balance could happen from random chance is like believing that a tornado going through a junkyard could leave a fully functional Boeing 747 in its wake. Frame, skins, wiring, electronics, hydraulics, fluids and wheels/tires/brakes, all created at once, perfectly from random chance. No matter how many tornados & how many junkyards you postulate, it's just not possible.

Stepping from single celled organisms to complex plants and animals requires a similar stretch. Early "black box" concepts that assumed a new feature would be generated whole and incorporated instantly sounded plausible, but understanding that a complex feature would require a LONG time to evolve ruins it. Random selection and survival of the fittest can fine-tune an organism to some extent, but growing completely new structures/functions involves interim states where the new function is utterly useless, for many many generations, until that new structure is complete. In the interim, that useless function makes the creature LESS capable of surviving, since it's wasting energy and resources on something other than raw existence, and natural selection does NOT favor or encourage a creature dragging around something new that's totally useless. Postulate a creature developing a wing from a foot. For many generations, it will have two deformed front feet that will not function well as feet, and are still not wings. That creature will get eaten first, while his proper 4 legged brothers escape the predators, and the new wing will never come into existence. Besides which, a winged creature also requires a light skeletal structure, special new strong muscles to drive the wings, a reshaped skeleton to place the wings in the right place for proper balance and function, and on and on. He's a sitting duck until all that comes into proper shape. Natural selection kills him off in favor of his more functional predecessors.

And how about going from creatures that reproduce directly from division to the two-sex model that most of the animal kingdom uses, as do plants with male/female components? That requires belief that an organism runs PARALLEL and complimentary evolution with one group evolving a male component, and another group evolving a female component, at the same time, over a LONG time, both totally non-functional in the interim, and both somehow encouraged by random selection to be conserved, formed, and passed on long enough to come to completion. Then the two groups have to find each other and mate successfully to continue the dance. How does natural selection encourage and shape the non-functional interim states that lead up to hot and heavy sex?

Talk about faith?

I don't know who originally coined the term "intelligent design", but it is currently used by atheist/agnostic scientists that are taking a long hard look at the true odds of life starting/evolving randomly and concluding that the odds are impossible, and random selection is not an adequate explanation for what they have observed. They don't have any religious beliefs, but they conclude honestly that SOMETHING had to have shaped things intentionally. And they are ridiculed and ostracized as much as the first astronomers that proved that the Earth was not the center of the universe.

The scientific community is as religiously committed to a godless creation as the religious are committed to a created universe, and they fight hard to protect their position. There are plenty of holes in it. Way to many to try and list here. They ignore data that conflicts with their theories. They ignore scientists that disagree with them. They are quite happy to argue details and minutia that fits within a godless creation, but they are totally unwilling to admit that any evidence points in another direction. They do not WANT to admit to a creator. This is not objective science, it's become a religion in itself.

Objective science is supposed to be interested in what IS. Any theory that can be proved inadequate to explain observed phenomena is supposed to be rejected, and the search for a better explanation started. Unfortunately for the evolutionists, we've reached the point where the foundations of their structure are not sustainable, and the only general explanation that fits the observed data involves intelligent outside intervention, which they are not willing to accept. So they continue to prop up a theory that doesn't explain the facts, which is NOT science.

The physical sciences are in somewhat the same dilemma. The Big Bang theory, with a recurring expansion/contraction/new bang component sidestepped creation, as long s they were able to assume that nothing ever startede it going originally, but they're ve recently determined that we live in an ever expanding universe, so now they're down to just one original BANG, with nothing to explain how/where that original nucleus came from. Physical scientists don't worry nearly as much about a creator, but their work plays into it as well.

I doubt that the scientific process could ever define or prove who or what God is, and we'll always disagree on that, as much MUST be assumed on faith that is not directly provable. But the overall body of scientific knowledge proves virtually conclusively that something bigger than us had a finger in creation. It wasn't random chance, and a tornado cannot create a 747 out of random junk, no matter how long you wait for it.

 

GT, that's just what I was going to say

 

G.T. you can't really be that intelligent to write that on your own.http://forums.majorgeeks.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif

Admit it. God helped you.http://forums.majorgeeks.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

 

Just my 2 cents,I believe in evolution with an open mind,but I also believe I will live after death,the way I see the universe is,it has been here for ever,I dont think something can be created from nothing,but yet we are here,that is the miracle I believe in,I cant find a flaw in it,we are here,why? because there had to be something,thats the miracle,if you believe god appeared and created the universe,or the universe just appeared and god evolved,this belief superceeds all of them,it was a miracle that just had to happen,Simply prevent there being nothing.

I also believe the universe is infinite in size,if you get to the end,there must be something further on. We all know time can be percieved and exists,so in this infinite space and time,what are the odds I wont have conciousness again,being dead the perception of time is instantaneous,so I believe,CLICK straight into something else the instant of death,not a person animal that kind of reincartion,something unimaginable,totally unfamiliar with what we think of as normal.I dont think we will all meet up on the other side,but hey infinite time,infinite space,infinite possibilities.

This thread is Deeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep.

BTW the life after death,I'm in no hurry to find out.

 

i 100% agree with YOU.
beanier-: you have no idea what you are talking about. i would suggest that next time you expounded on a subject, you did some research first!!
GT:- i love you
aloha laurie

 

Those people didn't live that long... it was a mistranslation... It is supposed to say 'lunar cycle' instead of 'year'... divide the numbers of those people's supposed ages by 13 or so, the number of lunar cycles in a year, and you come out with very reasonable lifetime figures...

 

beanier you have quite obviously never read the book. please stop pretending you know what your talking about. aloha

 

I hate joining these threads 5 pages in...

The further out into the universe Hubble went, the less agnostic and the more atheistic I became. I'm still not convinced that there is no God, but that might just be a fear of finally accepting such.

Evolution may or may not be the answer, but really, who cares? It's just a name on an idea. Eventually it will be proven beyond all doubt, or someone will come up with a better idea.

I don't know G.T. Like the planet inhabited by intelligent Biros in HHGTTG, it can happen if there are enough planets. In fact, with enough planets, it would be statistically very unlikely for it not to happen.

Same with "evolution". I would be surprised to find life abundant in the universe, but not to find it dotted around here and there, like decent people in government.

I don't believe we were created. I certainly disagree with those who take literally any works of man, be it the Bible, Koran, or any other holy book.

I don't know if we evolved. I think that the Theory of Evolution is very much a work in progress. Eventually someone will nail it though, and it might be very different from what we have now.

 

Flaming bush, letters on the wall, the whole 9 yards.

 

Why do everybody beleive after death the perception of time is instantaneous,why cant time flow the same way after death?

 

i think the thing this thread has examplified more than anything is that we dont KNOW anything about anything really. as vast as the universes are so the microcosm gets infinately smaller. the more we discover the more we dont know. its too cool really. aloha

 

Maybe it does,will,what I believe is when your Unconscious/dead you have no perception of time,because the electrons in your brain are no longer firing.This is the only way you can percieve time,the amount of time it takes for your brain to complete a said thought,like how a computer's speed is recognized,the possibilities that occur after that are too inumerable to even guess on,how could you explain time being constant,what makes you think you are aware of time when your brain has rotted to worm food?

You are talking of transcending to a higher plain,with time being constant,that is faith if ever I heard it,I am trying to find scientific reason,to what might happen after death,and you not doing anything until the time arises when you may be conscious and being aware of it,I dont believe will happen,I didnt even know other people thought that time was constant after death.

I am not a believer that we are special,at the centre of the universe,that theres a plan that happens to every soul once it has died,My belief is only that the odds are stacked in our favour we may live again,If you can imagine the largest number you can think of it still short of infinity,so the odds are always stacked in the favour of any possibility,this can be used and abused,to come up with any scenario,this is just mine.

 

So we need a physical precense to perceive time?
After all there is no way of measuring time without motion.
So when we die we are like frozen until something else happens?

 

that made me remember something i was taught at psychiatric school. that the difference between men and animals is not opposing thumbs, but the ability to wonder. that ability cannot be categorized within the parameters of cellular structure. it is possible that this ability is what made cro-magnon man so much more successful than Neanderthal? is it possible that ability was somehow an evolution of instinct? or that it is the divine gift? what we do know is that cro-magon man appeared to spread out across the world from a starting point roughly where they guess the garden of eden was. more coincidence? i find both the study of anthropology and theology fascinating.

 

I am a firm believer in evolution, having studied it for over 30 years. I am also a firm believer in God.

I believe that we are incapable of understanding God's ways, plans, actions - whatever you want to call them, anymore than an amoeba can understand calculus. To pretend we can tell others what God intends for us (and them) is the heighth of arrogance, and the sin of pride.

I accept God on faith, and no one can change that. I accept evolution on the overwhelming evidence that supports it - but that can change, because unlike faith, science, in the long run at least, is self correcting.

If you accept that we evolved, how can you argue that God did not intend this to occur ? The very fact that we can discuss God, the universe, and everything implies to me that a far greater truth than we can understand exists, requires faith, and is impossible to debate, as we are too primitive, compared to God, to even begin to understand what lays ahead for each of us.

 

Kadavill its not fair I keep explaining what I believe in detail just for you to shoot down,ofcourse there are holes in what I am saying.

This is my position,time is infinite,when we die,through whatever means during the course of infinity,theres a chance we will be conscious beings,in whatever form that takes.

ANYTHING can happen,there are infinite possibilities,there is INFINITE time for these events to occur to bring us back to conscious beings,I have no idea how,why,what I am saying is the odds are stacked in the favour of it being possible,just as thay are in my eyes of other beings living on other planets.

Kadavill what do you believe?

 

What did the Hubble see that changed your mind?

Imagine yourself as being the Creator of a universe and everything in it. You don't want to be alone, so you make a family and put them on a planet. After a while you decide they need rules to live by. But you can't just go and tell them, because they have to believe in you of their own free will. You can't just make them magically appear either. So you give them to one person. That person then delivers your laws to the people. Many people believe that you got them from the Creator, but many don't. Oh, well. Seeing is believing.
Then you decide that you want to have a book of history and more guidelines and information about yourself. You even go to the people as one of them. You tell them who you are. But no one really believes you, except for a few. Remember, you are all powerful. So how difficult would it be to have men write your book? Of course, you still can't show yourself. Which means that it will look again as if man did it all himself. Over the years, your book will be translated and retranslated, which gives even more doubt to the unbelievers.

 

Very well said, and no one should try too.

Steve

 

Rikky:I really loved your detail explanation.
And I beleive in something like you said.
Time is something that god made to prevent everything from happening all at once.
I will give you a detail explanation later.

 

I think there is no outside to the universe and no way you can see god with a telescope.The idea that the ancient greeks beleived is no more.The universe has no boundaries and god lives beyond space.

 

And what exactly did we evolve from?
No, I don't believe that we evolved from anything. And there is not a single shred of proof that supports it. Only theories. Just as the existence of God cannot be disproven, neither can the theory of man's evolution. The reason: Hard to prove something wrong, when there is not even proof that it is correct. Although, I have seen more proof of the existence of God than of evolution. No, I firmly believe that when God made man in His image, he made us complete, as is.

 

I have a simple question. I haven't read this thread in it's entirety because it seems like a waste of time so don't jump on me if this was already asked: What is it about the theory of God and the theory of evolution that people seem to think that are mutually exclusive of each other? Cannot God make a creature that can evolve? I know if you look at literal strict interpretations of the bible, then it suggests that each creature was made individually and all that. But for the vast majority of us, the bible is a book of worship and not a book of science. What I don't understand is that people who thing providing evidence that evolution happened is providing evidence against a higher being. Maybe it provides evidence against using the bible as a science book, but does not exclude the presence of a higher being.

 

this is no doubt that as a species we have evolved from stone-age man, but the problem then arises from 'the missing link' between ape like man and man like ape. how can there possibly be a missing anything, we have dug and explored every corner of the planet. the bible does indeed state that man existed before Adam so maybe Adam was simply the first cro-magnon. that apes evolved as far as they could into Neanderthal and then something happened to produce a different species? there are two facets to this discussion. whether life itself was formed by God or the primeval soup, and whether man himself was a product of god or evolution. aloha

 

I'm sorry, but I doubt that we evolved from "stone-age" man. Show me the proof. And it better be more than a few odd skeletons. And why is it that man hasn't changed since recorded history? Our intelligence hasn't improved, as a whole that is. Why is it that we can accept the word of a few scientists, but not the word of God?

 

we have changed since recorded history. the different body types and head shapes have quite quickly merged. the shorter northan people, the mongolian, the african. our gene pool has become stronger, our senses sharper, we get faster and stronger with each set of olimpic games. the evidence is that cro-magnon man was able to wonder about his universe. neanderthal was not. the difference lies not in the use and production of tools, but the use of art. aloha